Why sociology does not need to be saved: Analytic reflections on public sociologies

Abstract

After reviewing the debate about public sociologies in the American Sociological Association over the past few years, we offer a response to calls for "saving sociology" from the Burawoy approach as well as an analytic critique of the former ASA president's "For Public Sociology" address. While being sympathetic to the basic idea of public sociologies, we argue that the "reflexive" and "critical" categories of sociology, as Burawoy has conceptualized them, are too ambiguous and value-laden to allow for empirical investigation of the different major orientations of sociological research and the ways the discipline can address non-academic audiences. Debates about the future of sociology should be undertaken with empirical evidence, and we need a theoretical approach that can allow us to compare both disciplines and nations as well as taking into account the institutional context of the universities in which we operate. Research into the conditions under which professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies could work together for the larger disciplinary and societal good is called for instead of overheated rhetoric both for and against public sociologies.The emergence of "public sociologies" as a conference theme, an intellectual movement and vision for the discipline is one of the most exciting, productive, and important events in the recent history of sociology. The American Sociological Association conference "Public Sociologies" in 2004 organized in San Francisco was interesting, extremely well attended, and has injected renewed energy into the discipline. We have been discussing the issue in Canada, as welP appropriately so, since Burawoy's (2005b) original notion of "provincializing American sociology" suggests a truly global vision for sociology. Certainly the exciting international presence at the annual meetings in San Francisco bodes well for the future.This movement towards public sociologies, however, is not uncontroversial. In addition to numerous dialogues and debates about the trend, there has also emerged Neil McLaughlin teaches sociological theory at McMaster University and publishes in the sociology of culture, intellectuals, and knowledge. In addition to studying both Canadian intellectual life and sociology, he is working on The Concept of the Global Public Intellectual and the issue of marginality and the social origins of creativity. Lisa Kowalchuk has done research on Salvadorean social movements around land reform and public service privitization. She is an assistant professor in the Sociology and Anthropology department at the University of Guelph (Ontario). Her latest article, "The Discourse of Demobilization: Shifts in Activist Priorities and the Framing of Political Opportunities in a Peasant Land Struggle," appears in The SociologicalQuarterly 46(2) 2005. Kerry Turcotte is a doctoral candidate in sociology at McMaster University. Her current work involves the analysis of blame-laying by public intellectuals. Her broader research agenda includes what she calls "sustainable" forms...

Theoretical Approaches to Normativity in Communication Research

“…Marxist–Leninist ideas in journalism research, for example, ended in Germany along with the collapse of the German Democratic Republic. In sociology, to draw upon another social scientific discipline, we are reminded of the heated debates between critical sociology (public and policy‐oriented, reformers, and activists) and the radical professional establishment—“proponents of a scientific sociology and an autonomous academic discourse” (McLaughlin, Kowalchuk, & Turcotte, , p. 135) concerned that sociology might be moving too close to Marxism.…”

“…Yet, those who opt to serve in the dominant pole of the field do not at all present a concordant canon, either. Nonetheless, a powerful environment makes a researcher even more powerful within the field, as illustrated by an actor in sociology: “As a Berkeley sociologist, Burawoy has access to cultural capital, powerful networks, resources and highly motivated and well‐trained graduate students that help his efforts in promoting a vision for public sociologies” (McLaughlin et al, , p. 140). Researchers in other countries have other resources and other priorities precisely because they operate in other higher‐education systems.…”

“…Burawoy () takes a “saving sociology” approach that is criticized by McLaughlin et al (). They argue “that the ‘reflexive’ and ‘critical’ categories of sociology, as Burawoy has conceptualized them, are too ambiguous and value‐laden to allow for empirical investigation” (p. 133).…”

Doing It in Public: Dilemmas of Images, Voice, and Constructing Publics in Public Sociology on Sex Work

“…Burawoy's vision of the typology and “division of labor” in sociology has been the subject of much critique and debate (see Calhoun ; Christensen ; Ericson ; McLaughlin, Kowalchuk, and Turcotte ; Nickel ; Tittle ). Some critics have argued that the typology is indistinct and that Burawoy's delineations between the types of sociology are unhelpful due to significant overlaps in practice (Horowitz ); others have questioned the idea that sociology as a discipline is not inherently public (Ericson ).…”

Public Sociology and the Public Turn in the Social Sciences

“…Other criticisms have rejected the ideal of public sociology altogether and have attempted to ‘defend’ sociology against politics, even publishing a Web site titled ‘Save Sociology,’ (2010)] which ‘was developed in response to the various forms of attack on sociology as an academic discipline that have taken place in recent years, especially since the advent of so‐called public sociology. This [is] an attempt to safeguard the academic status and integrity of sociology.’ (For a response see McLaughlin et al. 2007) Burawoy (2009a, p. 462) characterizes this debate as ‘The Public Sociology Wars.’ Although words like ‘war,’ in their reification of conflict, may inhibit the emergence of dialogue, they also are telling of the political impact of the suggestion that there is a legitimate intellectuality to be found outside the boundaries of fixed intellectual authority.…”